Tag: carbon dioxide emissions

The Spin Cycle is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description, visit the inaugural edition.

—

President Obama is keen on calling carbon dioxide emitted from our nation’s fossil fuel-powered energy production, “carbon pollution.” For example, last week, when introducing EPA’s Clean Power Plan—new regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from the power plants that currently produce 67 percent of the country’s electricity—he used the term “carbon pollution” ten times. For example:

Right now, our power plants are the source of about a third of America’s carbon pollution. That’s more pollution than our cars, our airplanes and our homes generate combined. That pollution contributes to climate change, which degrades the air our kids breathe. But there have never been federal limits on the amount of carbon that power plants can dump into the air. Think about that. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water – and we’re better off for it. But existing power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of harmful carbon pollution into the air. [emphasis added]

Clearly, he is trying to paint a picture for the American public whereby carbon dioxide emissions are thought of as dirty, noxious substances that invade the air we breathe and make us sick. Who wouldn’t support regulation to try to limit such a menace?

But, this is scientifically inaccurate and, no doubt, intentionally misleading. It reflects poorly on the president and on his scientific advisors.

In our all-too-politically-correct world, carbon dioxide (CO2) frequently gets a bad rap, demonized for its potential and unverified effects on climate. However, if the truth be told, carbon dioxide is a magnificent molecule, essential to nearly all life on Earth. It is the primary raw material from which plants construct their tissues and grow during the process of photosynthesis. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, therefore, that plants perform this essential function ever better as atmospheric CO2 levels climb ever higher, a fact demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field studies (see, for example, the Plant Growth Database of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change). And because plants are the ultimate food source for animals and humans, we are all indebted to CO2 for its role in sustaining and promoting the growth of plants everywhere.

But there are other benefits to atmospheric CO2 enrichment beyond enhancing plant growth, as illustrated in the recent study of Xi et al. (2014). Publishing in the professional journal Food Chemistry, the six-member team of Chinese horticultural and food scientists “investigated the effectiveness of CO2 enrichment for improving fruit flavor and customer acceptance of greenhouse-grown peaches.”

The rationale for their study stems from the fact that peaches are widely cultivated in greenhouses throughout northern China. Under such controlled conditions, the trees are afforded protection from the natural environment, including damaging low temperatures and high winds. But this protection does not come without a price—plant photosynthesis can cause CO2 levels inside closed greenhouses to decrease during daylight hours to values below 200 parts per million, which values are half or less than half the CO2 concentration of normal outside air. As a result, Xi et al. state these “low CO2 levels may be a limiting factor for the productivity of fruit trees cultivated in greenhouses,” and they may negatively impact the “development of fruit flavor quality” and aroma, which is not good for those in the peach growing business! Thus, the six scientists set out to explore how enriching greenhouse air with CO2 might mitigate these potential problems.

For their experimental design, Xi et al. (2014) divided a greenhouse into two parts using a hermetic barrier wall, supplying one side with CO2-enriched air and the other with ambient air to be used as the control. The enriched side of the greenhouse was maintained at an atmospheric CO2 value of 360 ppm (approximately twice that of the control) from 12:00 to 16:00 each day during the main CO2 shortage period, while “fruit sugar, organic acids, volatile contents and consumer acceptability were investigated, focusing on the period of postharvest ripening.”

With respect to their findings, the Chinese researchers report that net photosynthesis was significantly increased in the trees growing in the CO2-enchanced portion of the greenhouse despite their receiving only a mere 4 hours of CO2 enrichment per day above those growing in the ambient or control portion of the structure. Elevated CO2 also improved fruit flavor and aroma, significantly increasing dominant sugar levels (sucrose and fructose), fruity aroma compounds (lactones), and floral scent compounds (norisoprenoids), while decreasing compounds that contribute to fruit sourness and undesirable aroma volatiles (Table 1).

Table1. Percent difference of various peach fruit compounds from trees grown in CO2 enriched air, relative to trees grown in ambient air, as measured in fruit picked on the day of harvest and five days after harvest. Data derived from Table 1 of Xi et al. (2014).

As a result of their findings, the authors conclude that “CO2 enrichment can significantly improve the flavor quality of ‘Zaolupantao’ peach fruits grown in greenhouse and their consumer acceptance.” And if it can do that from a mere four hours of CO2 enrichment per day in a greenhouse, imagine what 24 hours of enrichment might promise for other fruiting plants growing out-of-doors, in natural environments, under present-day global atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm and above? Hinting at the possibilities, Xi et al. cite the work of researchers studying other fruits, where similar CO2 benefits have been reported for tomato (Shahidul Islam et al., 1996; Zhang et al., 2014), strawberry (Wang and Bunce, 2004; Sun et al., 2012), and grapes (Bindi et al., 2001).

Yes, truth be told, atmospheric CO2 is a magnificent molecule, and those who continue to demonize it based on potential and unproven climatic effects, should wake up and smell the peaches—or they should at least eat one and taste how sweet its biological benefits can be!

The front page of yesterday’s New York Times included the beginning of a long article about geoengineering—in this case, as it applies to purposeful activities aimed at changing the earth’s climate at a large scale. Why on earth would anyone even think of doing something like that? Why to avoid catastrophic global warming, of course!

Thankfully, most signs point to only a modest global temperature increase resulting from our fossil fuel usage—a rise that will be readily adapted to and which actually may work out to be more beneficial than detrimental. Thankfully, we say, because geoengineering schemes seem like really bad ideas full of nasty consequences (unintentional and otherwise) and we are glad that no one is seriously entertaining them.

Most folks who spend much time critically thinking about geoengineering the climate arrive at the same conclusion.

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Last week, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The motivation for the EPA’s plan comes from the President’s desire to address and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

We hate to be the party poopers, but the new regulations will do no such thing.

The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity. Apparently the President wants to lock in those gains and manipulate the market to see that the same decline takes place in twice the time. Nothing like government intervention to facilitate market inefficiency. But we digress.

The EPA highlighted what the plan would achieve in their “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet that accompanied their big announcement.

For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States from the production and consumption of energy have been on the decline since about 2005, after generally being on the rise ever since our country was first founded.

The decline in emissions between 2012 and 2011 was 3.8 percent, which, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the largest decline in a non-recession year since 1990 and the first time that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell while the per capita economic output increased by more than 2 percent. In other words, we are producingmore while emitting less carbon dioxide.

A new report from the International Energy Agency is sparking headlines across the media. “Global carbon dioxide emissions soared to record high in 2012” proclaimed USA Today; The Weather Channel led “Carbon dioxide emissions rose to record high in 2012”; and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer added “The world pumped a record amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2012.”

The figure below (taken from the IEA summary) provides the rest of the story.

It shows a breakdown of the change in carbon dioxide emissions from 2011 to 2012 from various regions of the globe.

Notice that the U.S. is far and away the leader in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while China primarily is responsible for pushing global CO2 emissions higher. In fact, CO2 emissions growth in China more than offsets all the CO2 savings that we have achieved in the U.S.

This will happen for the foreseeable future. Domestic actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not produce a decline in the overall atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The best we can hope to achieve is to slow the rate of growth of the atmospheric concentration—an effect that we can only achieve until our emissions are reduced to zero. The resulting climate impact is small and transient.

And before anyone goes and getting too uppity about the effectiveness of “green” measures in the U.S., the primary reason for the U.S. emissions decline is the result of new technologies from the fossil fuel industry that are leading to cheap coal being displaced by even cheaper natural gas for the generation of electricity. As luck would have it, the chemistry works out that that burning natural gas produces the same amount of energy for only about half of the CO2 emissions that burning coal does.

A new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as a result of these new technologies (e.g., hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling), globally, the technologically recoverable reserves of natural gas are nearly 50% greater than prior to their development.

Currently, the U.S. is the leader in the deployment of these technologies, and the effects are obvious (as seen in the figure above). If and when more countries start to employ such technologies to recover natural gas, perhaps the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions will begin to slow (as compared to current projections).

Well, we now have the real “discussion draft” of “The American Power Act” [APA], sponsored by John Kerry (D-NH) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lindsay Graham (R-SC) used to be on the earlier drafts, but excused himself to have a temper tantrum.

So, while Sallie talked about the trade aspects of the bill, I’d like to blather about the mechanics, costs, and climate effects. If you don’t want to read the excruciating details, stop here and note that it mandates the impossible, will not produce any meaningful reduction of planetary warming, and it will subsidize just about every form of power that is too inefficient to compete today.

APA reduces emissions to the same levels that were in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last June 26. Remember that one – snuck through on a Friday evening, just so no one would notice? Well, people did, and it, not health care, started the angry townhall meetings last summer. No accident, either, that Obama’s approval ratings immediately tanked.

Just like Waxman-Markey, APA will allow the average American the carbon dioxide emissions of the average citizen back in 1867, a mere 39 years from today. Just like Waxman-Markey, the sponsors have absolutely no idea how to accomplish this. Instead they wave magic wands for noncompetitive technologies like “Carbon Capture and Sequestration” (“CCS”, aka “clean coal”), solar energy and windmills, and ethanol (“renewable energy”), among many others.

Just like Waxman-Markey, no one knows the (enormous) cost. How do you put a price on something that doesn’t exist? We simply don’t know how to reduce emissions by 83%. Consequently, APA is yet another scheme to make carbon-based energy so expensive that you won’t use it.

This will be popular! At $4.00 a gallon, Americans reduced their consumption of gasoline by a whopping 4%. Go figure out how high it has to get to drop by 83%.

Oh, I know. Plug-in hybrid cars will replace gasoline powered ones. Did I mention that the government-produced Chevrolet Volt is, at first, only going to be sold to governments and where it is warm because even the Obama Administration fears that the car will not be very popular where most of us live. Did I mention that the electric power that charges the battery most likely comes from the combustion of a carbon-based fuel? Getting to that 83% requires getting rid of carbon emissions from power production. Period. In 39 years. Got a replacement handy?

Don’t trot out natural gas. It burns to carbon dioxide and water, just like coal. True, it’s about 55% of the carbon dioxide that comes from coal per unit energy, but we’ll also use a lot more more electricity over the next forty years. In other words, switching to natural gas will keep adding emissions to the atmosphere.

Anyway, just for fun, I plugged the APA emissions reduction schedule into the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC – I am not making this up), which is what the United Nations uses to estimate the climatic effects of various greenhouse-gas scenarios.

I’ve included two charts with three scenarios. One is for 2050 and the other for 2100. They assume that the “sensitivity” of temperature to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 2.5°C, a number that many scientists think is too high, given the pokey greenhouse-effect warming of the planet that has occurred as we have effectively gone half way to a doubling already. The charts show prospective warming given by MAGICC.

The first scenario is “business-as-usual”, the perhaps too-optimistic way of saying a nation without APA. The second assumes that only the US does APA, and the third assumes that each and every nation that has “obligations” under the UN’s Kyoto Protocol on global warming does the same.

As you can plainly see, APA does nothing, even if all the Kyoto-signatories meet its impossible mandates. The amount of warming “saved” by 2100 is 7% of the total for Business-as-Usual, or two-tenths of a degree Celsius. That amount will be barely detectable above the year-to-year normal fluctuations. Put another way, if we believe in MAGICC, APA – if adopted by us, Europe, Canada, and the rest of the Kyotos – will reduce the prospective temperature in 2100 to what it would be in 2093.

That’s a big if. Of course, we could go it alone. In that case, the temperature reduction would in fact be too small to measure reliably.

I’m hoping these numbers surface in the “debate” over APA.

So there you have it, the new American Power Act, a bill that doesn’t know how to achieve its mandates, has a completely unknown but astronomical cost, and doesn’t do a darned thing about global warming. Such a deal!